"Parenting Without Punishing"

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Adults have the freedom to change jobs, change roommates, and do
various other things to get away from speech that is bothering them. In
a workplace, the "take it to the boss" option is available. If the boss
accepts the complaint as valid, the boss can tell the other person to
stop
using offensive language or he'll be fired.
-------------------
That's PC bull****, no one should have the expectation that another's
message will be silenced just to please them, ESECIALLY merely because
that message is not popular. How then should we decide whom to suppress?
The proper approach is to tell them to cease contacting a specific
person. Our work life IS our life, for most people.

That's basically what I had in mind. As long as the person who is offended
is not subjected to the offensive language, there is no problem.
--------------------
People will disagree as to what is "offensive".
They will do so for dishonest reasons to try to control others and
enslave them to their private agenda.

Only suppress speech only in places people are trapped together
when BOTH sides believe the speech is intended to be insulting!


I find the contrast between how you stand up for free speech here and how
you want to silence the freedom of speech that would come with vouchers
interesting.
[]
You seem very hypocritical to me, standing up for free speech
except when someone wants to teach children something you disagree with.
---------------------
No "interesting" to it. It's because what I say is the Truth, and
what they say are Lies meant to benefit them unfairly.

Go back to basic principles even MORE Fundamental than any supposed
"rights"!:
The ACTUAL ORIGINAL INTENT BEHIND "freedom of speech" is that the
Truth be known, not that immature idiots and Evil *******s should
have the right to deceive others any way they want to at any time
for Evil purposes.

We have laws against fraud and against misinforming others about
anything important in countless ways, we do NOT and ARE NOT SUPPOSED
to have some boundless right to speak lies!
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Go back to basic principles even MORE Fundamental than any supposed
"rights"!: The ACTUAL ORIGINAL INTENT BEHIND "freedom of
speech" is that the Truth be known, not that immature idiots and Evil
*******s should have the right to deceive others any way they want
to at any time for Evil purposes.

The reason why we have freedom of speech enshrined in our Constitution is
that when government starts arbitrarily deciding what is the "Truth" and who
are the "immature idiots and Evil *******s," that power can be horribly
misused, sometimes by intent and sometimes just because whoever is in power
(even the majority) is wrong. We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases,
but your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know
what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who are
wrong. History has shown that such arrogance is too dangerous to be allowed
to become a legal basis for silencing one's opponents.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Go back to basic principles even MORE Fundamental than any supposed
"rights"!: The ACTUAL ORIGINAL INTENT BEHIND "freedom of
speech" is that the Truth be known, not that immature idiots and Evil
*******s should have the right to deceive others any way they want
to at any time for Evil purposes.

The reason why we have freedom of speech enshrined in our Constitution is
that when government starts arbitrarily deciding what is the "Truth" and who
are the "immature idiots and Evil *******s," that power can be horribly
misused, sometimes by intent and sometimes just because whoever is in power
(even the majority) is wrong.
----------------------
Nonsense. The English weren't even doing any such thing at the
time of the revolution. The framers knew doodley **** about your
modern propaganda machines called the media. The danger to freedom
is never the People deciding what is True, but minority nobilities
or rich private minority cabals!


We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases,
but your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know
what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who are
wrong.
-------------------
The assertion that the Truth is so hard to detect is merely
disinformation by the rich who want you to question yourselves
so they aren't killed for their economic and political crimes!
It's merely desperate propaganda!


History has shown that such arrogance is too dangerous to be allowed
to become a legal basis for silencing one's opponents.
--------------------------
Propaganda!!
History was WRITTEN by such arrogsant rich minorities, and they LIE
about the availability of the Truth just to protect their wealth!
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases, but
your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know
what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who
are wrong.
-------------------
The assertion that the Truth is so hard to detect is merely
disinformation by the rich who want you to question yourselves
so they aren't killed for their economic and political crimes!
It's merely desperate propaganda!

You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic fantasy
of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous clearly proven
realities about human nature and about the limitations of democratic control
(not the least of which is how little the majority can reasonably be
expected to know about the average issue with a zillion issues to decide).
Variants of communism have been tried in the Soviet Union and China, among
other places, and while some of the problems in such places can reasonably
be attributed to the fact that their governments were totalitarian rather
than democratic, other serious problems demonstrated in those nations would
almost certainly crop up even in a democratically controlled communistic
society.

In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the
poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of
economic growth in the long term. Even if the rate of economic growth in a
communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic
society, the total growth in a communistic society in a century would be
less than 37% of what a capitalistic society would achieve. Add another
century and that drops to less than fourteen percent. And with a bigger
difference in the growth rate, the exponential effect can be felt a lot more
quickly. It is that exponential effect that destroyed the Soviet Union by
causing them to fall farther and farther behind - even in spite of their
being able to copy innovations from capitalist nations instead of having to
invent everything themselves.

At any one moment in time, yes, capitalism is a highly unfair system. But
if capitalism can grow the pie at even a slightly faster rate than communism
can - and all of the evidence indicates that it can do at least that - the
long-term result is that even the poor in a capitalistic society will have
more wealth than the citizens in a communistic society would. The fairness
of communism is bought only by robbing the future.

Getting back to the issue of freedom of speech, the point is that Truth
often has more than one angle to it - and some angles are easier to see than
others. Silencing competing viewpoints is very dangerous.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases, but
your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know
what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who
are wrong.
-------------------
The assertion that the Truth is so hard to detect is merely
disinformation by the rich who want you to question yourselves
so they aren't killed for their economic and political crimes!
It's merely desperate propaganda!

You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic fantasy
of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous clearly proven
realities about human nature and about the limitations of democratic control
(not the least of which is how little the majority can reasonably be
expected to know about the average issue with a zillion issues to decide).
---------------------
Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable
reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom
in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS
in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an
obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more.

There ARE NO supposed "realities of human nature" that were not then
also operant in tribal times that did not represent a fairly simple
emotional disorder due to isolated cases of abuse which was then and
now best treated by affection and social control, and if need be,
systematic restraint and unrelanting humiliation for such behaviors,
nor are there any other such magical features to ACTUAL Human Nature NOW
that are not misbehaviors best treated as CRIMES and both deterred
and punished severely in order to eradicate them!

Your fantasy that this immature insecure greed-syndrome is "natural"
is nothing more than an ugly myth caused by your emotionally sick
partisan desire to succeed at thievery! Your supposed "normalcy" is
nothing but an sick emotional anomaly, in a modern society in which
it has become a pandemic, but one which in True Human Society is best
detected early in children and treated and prevented.


Variants of communism have been tried in the Soviet Union and China, among
other places,
--------------
So when 10% of the people enslave the other 90% and make them do all
the work, and when that minority takes 95% of their productive wealth
and sell it abroad to get rich and bank it in offshore banks just
like Capitalist money-launderers, and then rides around in limnousines
and fine clothes while the poor sew up their few cheap clothing items,
and when they let the poor divide the remaining pittance and call it
"equality", then that is "communism" to you???

Because it IS what happened in Russia and in China!!!!!
And that is NOT COMMUNISM!!!

Communism is when people are paid equally for their labor hours
because there is NO exploitation of one man by another!


and while some of the problems in such places can reasonably
be attributed to the fact that their governments were totalitarian rather
than democratic,
--------------------
Nope!
All govts are "totalitarian" to the people whose actions they intend
to suppress. Doesn't mean they're not right!

Soviet Russia and Red China and Europe waaay back when, were all
feudalisms. THAT is why their govt'al power was WRONG, it was
used to suppress the will of the majority!! It had nothing
whatsoever to do with the fact that it presecuted people for
violating its law, but instead, with what any such laws ARE!


other serious problems demonstrated in those nations would
almost certainly crop up even in a democratically controlled communistic
society.
----------------------
Totalitarianism is a meaningless term. If you don't like what a govt
does you call it totalitarian, even if most people like it just fine
because it guarantees them the liberty of genuine equality. The rich
call taxes "totalitarian", and so on...

No society CAN be "totalitarian", because no society has the manpower
to ever control every aspect of each other's lives, they have to work
for a living and consequently DON'T HAVE TIME, any more than one
can pull onseself into the air by one's bootstraps!

So it amounts to a society using its police to suppress antisocial
behaviors that we agree democratically we want to punish. Saying
that is "totalitarian" is merely a word game of attempting to
unjustly inflame your audience when most of them already disagree
with you!!

Any "totalitarian" govt that did that thoroughly what we all agreed
upon democratically, is merely being extremely effective, and it
should be COMMENDED!


In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the
poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of
economic growth in the long term.
-------------
You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically, that
without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall
productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a
social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE than
they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER than the
emotional illness that is "private" greed!

People can democratically decide to produce just as well or better
than any greedy pirate mentality who seeks only to get rich himself,
and usually by enslaving others while HE sits on his ass! A group
of people who want more consumer devices, can jolly well MAKE THEM
together, for each other working nights and weekends when they WANT
a huge boost in their consumer life!


Even if the rate of economic growth in a
communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic
society,
----------------
No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal.
But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices,
instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism,
because people work HARDER when they KNOW they are going to benefit
far MORE for each of their hours of labor than they had under thieving
Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work, and that
the bean counters who worked for them are now working production
lines, and that criminality has been prevented and the lazy will be
starved to death if they will not work, and as soon as they KNOW they
will get an EQUAL share of production for each of their hours of labor,
they know they will NOT be exploited, and that they can get as much
as they are willing to make! Consequently they will want MORE and MORE!
They will order goods, and those orders will authorize as many needed
extra hours of labor as they are willing to work to make those things
and deliver them to THEM, the people who MADE them!!


the total growth in a communistic society in a century would be
less than 37% of what a capitalistic society would achieve.
--------------------------
There is not even any known source for any such lie.
You totally confabulated.


Add another
century and that drops to less than fourteen percent. And with a bigger
difference in the growth rate, the exponential effect can be felt a lot more
quickly. It is that exponential effect that destroyed the Soviet Union by
causing them to fall farther and farther behind - even in spite of their
being able to copy innovations from capitalist nations instead of having to
invent everything themselves.
---------------------------
Total nonsense. Their masters wanted a lot, but wanted their slaves
to build it all for them. This deprived their slaves, and their
slaves decided not to work. This happens in every serfdom! It happens
whenever ANYONE is paid less than ANYONE else for the same hour of
labor!! It is differention of hourly compensation that causes this,
not any "evil commmmmmmmmunissm", as Nixon would say, his jowls
shaking!


At any one moment in time, yes, capitalism is a highly unfair system.
-------------------------
Nope!
Since each hour of labor is unfair, it is always just that unfair,
exactly, and can never be any better or fairer, because those who
do not work get the benefit of your labor, and that affects BOTH
your labor, AND your desire to work for those rich, instead of for
yourselves!.


But
if capitalism can grow the pie at even a slightly faster rate than communism
can - and all of the evidence indicates that it can do at least that - the
long-term result is that even the poor in a capitalistic society will have
more wealth than the citizens in a communistic society would. The fairness
of communism is bought only by robbing the future.
----------------------
Your dribble-down economic theory, which says that more will dribble
down the chins of the filthy rich to somehow feed the poor better,
does NOT work. The rich want to be ever richer, and they want ever
more for their investments, and that depresses the worker psyche and
loyalties to the system. The cycles of both investor and consumer
confidence based on uncontrolled greedy speculation, fluctuate wildly
and collapse periodically.

Whereas a society where each gets an absolute equal share of goods and
products of their every labor hour, have the greatest possible reason
to keep working avidly, and to make as much as they want. And if their
economy slumps at all it is absolutely zero cause for alarm, they
are only simply laying off a bit so they can all have a vacation!!


Getting back to the issue of freedom of speech, the point is that Truth
often has more than one angle to it - and some angles are easier to see than
others. Silencing competing viewpoints is very dangerous.
-------------------------------
There are NO "viewpoints", there is only the Truth, and lies!!
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic
fantasy of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous
clearly proven realities about human nature and about the limitations of
democratic control (not the least of which is how little the majority
can
reasonably be expected to know about the average issue with a zillion
issues to decide).
---------------------
Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable
reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom
in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS
in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an
obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more.

Would you mind giving me a ride in your time machine sometime? I'd be
interested to see these fully democratic tribes from the distant past of
yours. Oh, what, you don't have a time machine? Then how do you know how
democratic they were or weren't?

In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit
the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the
rate of economic growth in the long term.
-------------
You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically,
that without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall
productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a
social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE
than they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER
than the emotional illness that is "private" greed!

Can you provide some practical, real-world examples?

Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic
society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic
society,
----------------
No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal.
But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices,
instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism,

Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably eventually
become bigger than one that is not. The process might take years, or even
centuries, but it will happen.

But on the other hand, I see no basis for your claim that the economy would
somehow magically become several times larger to begin with.

Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work,

Where do you get your crazy notion that most of the rich do not work?

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable
reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom
in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS
in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an
obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more.

Would you mind giving me a ride in your time machine sometime?
I'd be interested to see these fully democratic tribes from the
distant past of yours. Oh, what, you don't have a time machine?
Then how do you know how democratic they were or weren't?
--------------------------
Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities
numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able
to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal
democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had
nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get
along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to
freedom and consensus!!


In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit
the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the
rate of economic growth in the long term.
-------------
You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically,
that without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall
productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a
social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE
than they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER
than the emotional illness that is "private" greed!

Can you provide some practical, real-world examples?
-----------------------------------
We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government
we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and
rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things
you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of
collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself
is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes
us apart.


Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic
society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic
society,
----------------
No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal.
But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices,
instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism,

Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably eventually
become bigger than one that is not. The process might take years, or even
centuries, but it will happen.
--------------------------------------
Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to
Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not
actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and
technology. These are actually opposites.


But on the other hand, I see no basis for your claim that the economy would
somehow magically become several times larger to begin with.
--------------------------------
The "economy" wouldn't, but the redistribution of wealth on a fairer
basis would MORE than double most people's buying power for the same
labor week, because the luxury items of the wealthy would no longer
be produced, and other consumer items would be instead, and because
the indolent rich and their cashiers and accountants that keep track
of what the poor owe the rich now, would then be employed at producing
consumer goods like the rest of us!


Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work,

Where do you get your crazy notion that most of the rich do not work?
-----------------------
Watching them. I have known a large number of them.
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities
numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able
to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal
democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had
nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get
along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to
freedom and consensus!!

You're ignoring the fact that living on one's own was both lonelier and more
dangerous than living with the tribe. Thus, the power to banish people from
the tribe, or to impose punishments that members of the tribe would have to
banish themselves to avoid, offered the potential for a great deal of
leverage. That would certainly have undermined freedom and the need for
consensus.

Further, it would not be especially hard for a tribal government to take the
form of a "big-tough-hunter-ocracy" where a group of the biggest, strongest
men impose their will on the rest of the tribe because the others don't dare
to challenge them - and aren't willing to take a chance on whether they
could survive if they killed off their best hunters in the night, even if
they would be willing to kill them and even if they were not too afraid to
try. There is no particular reason to think that everyone would be given an
equal voice and vote.

I'm not saying that an essentially democratic tribal government would be
impossible. I'm just saying that it cannot be taken for granted.

Can you provide some practical, real-world examples?
-----------------------------------
We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government
we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and
rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things
you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of
collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself
is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes
us apart.

I will certainly agree that collective greed works well in pursuing
collective goals - goals that are shared and that can be reached more
efficiently working together than working alone. But many goals are
individual, not collective, and your own stance against vouchers shows how
miserably collective greed can work when different people have different
goals.

"I want a Viper."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says you have to get a Porsche instead."

"I want a house with yellow bricks."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says that houses have to have red bricks."

A system centered around collective greed can fail miserably when
individuals need or want things that the collective does not care about, or
when the collective takes advantage of differences in what individuals want
as an excuse to provide them with less.

Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably
eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process
might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen.
--------------------------------------
Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to
Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not
actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and
technology. These are actually opposites.

You're being absurd.

Suppose I spend $5,000 on a machine that lets me produce widgets in half the
time it takes other people to produce them. That provides economic growth
because I can produce twice as many widgets in the same amount of time.

If widgets normally cost $50, it might look at first glance like I can keep
selling my widgets for $50 and pocket the difference for myself. But if I
would try such a thing, other people would notice and start thinking, "Hey,
he's getting rich off those widgets. I'll buy my own widget-making machine
and make some of that money for myself." Once widget-making machines become
more common, we have to reduce our prices in order to compete with each
other, so most of the benefit from the widget-making machines ends up going
to people who buy widgets instead of to us. If I'm the first one to get a
widget-making machine, I might make a lot of money before that happens. But
in the long term, it is the customers that can now buy widgets for maybe $30
each (since some of the money has to go to pay back the cost of the
machinery) instead of $50 that get most of the benefit.

That phenomenon, repeated over and over, is why America's economy has grown
to a point where our poor would be considered rich by the standards of quite
a few other nations. You can argue that you think your communistic approach
would work better, but you would have to be blind, a liar, or a lunatic to
claim that the rich are the only ones who benefit from a capitalistic
system's growth.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities
numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able
to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal
democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had
nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get
along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to
freedom and consensus!!

You're ignoring the fact that living on one's own was both lonelier and more
dangerous than living with the tribe.
-----------------------------
Not if the tribe splits. Example, if the old try to abuse the young,
the young may leave. And yet they have the best reasons to want to
get along in order to 1) succeed, and 2) be happy.


Thus, the power to banish people from
the tribe, or to impose punishments that members of the tribe would have to
banish themselves to avoid, offered the potential for a great deal of
leverage. That would certainly have undermined freedom and the need for
consensus.
--------------------------------
Nope, because they had to grant to each other whatever they wanted
for themselves, and that breeds consensus. Also they were lovers,
as tribes of pre-humans must have been because other apes are today.


Further, it would not be especially hard for a tribal government to take the
form of a "big-tough-hunter-ocracy" where a group of the biggest, strongest
men impose their will on the rest of the tribe because the others don't dare
to challenge them - and aren't willing to take a chance on whether they
could survive if they killed off their best hunters in the night, even if
they would be willing to kill them and even if they were not too afraid to
try. There is no particular reason to think that everyone would be given an
equal voice and vote.
---------------------------
One, big mean hunters don't do well. Bulls in a china shop don't do
well at subtle games of waiting and planning. The tribe's hunters
are the careful thinkers who can walk a long way and keep records
of where the game is, they are meticulous in making their weapons
so each lance or dart or arrow flies the same. And big mean anythings
don't do well in tribes, they aggravate people and they DO get killed
in their sleep or discplined by a group assault. No big guy can
succeed against even just three smaller people. The largest members
of the tribes are teddy bear types who like children and are humble.

Only in recent times, the last 5000 years or so, have there been a
way for large psychopaths to survive as criminals in bandit gangs.
This is because only in the last 5000 years have there been so many
people that those who were exiled for their criminality might find
one another and form bandit groups before they died of accident or
predation or starvation and exposure. Prior to that time our tribes
were simply too far apart.


I'm not saying that an essentially democratic tribal government would be
impossible. I'm just saying that it cannot be taken for granted.
--------------------------------------
And in the cases it didn't happen lots of people died or were
far less happy or successful. This is called the exception that
proves the rule. Our nature is well-known now, we simply take
it for granted and fail to see it, or we recall the invention
of crime by the Feudalistic psychopaths and assume we were them,
when we were not at all!


Can you provide some practical, real-world examples?
-----------------------------------
We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government
we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and
rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things
you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of
collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself
is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes
us apart.

I will certainly agree that collective greed works well in pursuing
collective goals - goals that are shared and that can be reached more
efficiently working together than working alone.
-----------------
Name JUST ONE that cannot be?? I can't think of one, honestly!!!

There is no one who does not at least secretly wish for a large
number of lovers who care about them and all get along together.

There is no one who does not want a lot of friends they can do
things with all the time, so they never have to be lonely again.

Sure, there are things one pursues alone, but its sour and cold
and seems pointless without others to show your hobbies to, or
to share together.


But many goals are individual, not collective,
-----------------
But only distorted criminal goals that CAN only arise in the
child-abused mind. No one who was not abused would want other
than collective happiness. Not even Rodney King, finally.


and your own stance against vouchers shows how
miserably collective greed can work when different people have different
goals.
-------------------------------------
You have an aberrational belief system BECAUSE you are the victim of
the slave-control religion of the last Feudalism, your family has
remnant serfdom in their mentality and that brainwashing was only
ended a few generations ago, if it has ended fully at all!


"I want a Viper."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says you have to get a Porsche instead."

"I want a house with yellow bricks."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says that houses have to have red bricks."
-------------------------
If you want a Viper, you build/buy it.
If you want yellow bricks, make them.


A system centered around collective greed can fail miserably when
individuals need or want things that the collective does not care about, or
when the collective takes advantage of differences in what individuals want
as an excuse to provide them with less.
---------------------------------
Nope, not so. Everyone has little desires that aren't shared by
everyone else, so we are senstive to what others might want even
if we don't. But we are also sensitive to believing the person
should acquire those themselves, and especially not expect the
rest of us to pay for them if we don't collectively agree to
fund promulgating them, like with religion.

Now if you want something we don't disagree about, something
merely aesthetic, or unimportant to us, then we might see that
we all have some things like that, and help each other acquire
them.

But we collectively do NOT have to fund or take a collective
stand on anything divisive that has been a sore point between
us all!! You see, because of well-remembered abuses many people
now HATE ANY kind of religion that parents try to impose on
children, and because of that this society right now is right
on the edge of making religious brainwashing of children
illegal, and this is WHY you're not going to make headway on
this one!!

Now YOU may not believe it, but for myself after seeing 50 years
of history this is a familiar pattern of change to me now, the
same sort we saw when spousal abuse because illegal and highly
focused in the public eye. The same sort of arguments happened,
and now there aren't any anymore! The society has finished
deciding, and started IMPRISONING!!

Religious brainwashing of children is already illegal in two
nations in Europe.


Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably
eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process
might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen.
--------------------------------------
Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to
Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not
actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and
technology. These are actually opposites.

You're being absurd.
-----------------------
Not at all, the "market", rather than meaning just "trade", is often
used to describe only the development of profit and enthusiasm for
those in the stock market, who derive that wealth from others WHO
WORK, but NOT by working THEMSELVES!!


Suppose I spend $5,000 on a machine that lets me produce widgets in half the
time it takes other people to produce them. That provides economic growth
because I can produce twice as many widgets in the same amount of time.
------------------------
No, that's NOT "economic growth", that grows nothing. It only makes
cheaper widgets so people can afford more of them if they want, or
spend less time earning one. They work the same hours but get more
widgets, or work less and spend less hours for one widget!

You would have the right to pay for the cost of the machine out of
the sales of your products to the State stores, as a part of your
costs, and otherwise you'd receive the same wage per hour for your
labor. Or you could sell the machine to the State for reimbursement
if you wanted and keep using it.


If widgets normally cost $50, it might look at first glance like I can keep
selling my widgets for $50 and pocket the difference for myself. But if I
would try such a thing, other people would notice and start thinking, "Hey,
he's getting rich off those widgets. I'll buy my own widget-making machine
and make some of that money for myself." Once widget-making machines become
more common, we have to reduce our prices in order to compete with each
other, so most of the benefit from the widget-making machines ends up going
to people who buy widgets instead of to us. If I'm the first one to get a
widget-making machine, I might make a lot of money before that happens. But
in the long term, it is the customers that can now buy widgets for maybe $30
each (since some of the money has to go to pay back the cost of the
machinery) instead of $50 that get most of the benefit.
------------------
You seem to have this fatuous immature delusion that after 54 years
that I haven't any idea how Capitalism works. Why do you even bother??
It still isn't "growth" as commonly spoken of in the marketplace. The
market speaks of growth only of profit.


That phenomenon, repeated over and over, is why America's economy has grown
to a point where our poor would be considered rich by the standards of quite
a few other nations. You can argue that you think your communistic approach
would work better, but you would have to be blind, a liar, or a lunatic to
claim that the rich are the only ones who benefit from a capitalistic
system's growth.
--------------------------
Actual productive growth that makes more goods for the same or less
labor is indeed technological and infrastructural growth. But in the
case of Capitalism the growth differential is mostly handed to the
rich, who do less or NO work for it, while the workers who did the
labor are deprived of most of that benefit. So no, you are barely
correct, they do barely benefit, if you call that benefitting.

But despite your desperate hand-waving and meaningless filthy
partisan anti-communist verbal gestures, YOU are the blind
lunatic liar here!!:

Communism does indeed do the very same thing, promoting these
same industrial advances by publically financing them in the
EXACT SAME manner as an investor in Capitalism, but COLLECTIVELY!!
AND HOWEVER!: When the widgets are divided, they go equally to
each laborer for each labor hour they spent making them, which
is the essence of fairness.
Steve